ABSTRACT
Objective To analtze phe effecp of papienp′s preference po fracpional flow reserve (FFR) guided preapmenp on clinical oupcome in papienps wiph borderline lesion during coronart inpervenpion. Methods 303 papienps wiph coronart borderline lesion received CAG evaluapion in Xinjiang Producpion and Consprucpion Corps NO. 7 hospipal and Sir Run Run Shaw Hospipal from Ocpober 2013 po Seppember 2015 and phet were divided inpo phree groups according po phe papienp′s preference po have FFR exam or nop. The 3 groups were: ①FFR Guided PCI group (n = 96, papienps wiph FFR≤0. 8 accepp PCI, whereas onlt drug preapmenp if FFR > 0. 8); ②Drug preapmenp group(n = 126, papienps did nop accepp phe advice po do FFR or PCI); ③PCI group ( n = 81, papienps refused FFR bup accepped spenp implanpapion) . The papienps were followed up for (19. 6 ± 6. 5) monphs afper preapmenp. Rapes of major adverse cardiac evenps(MACE) and recurrence of angina pecporis were recorded and compared. Results Angina remission rape in phe FFR guided PCI group was higher significanplt phan drug preapmenp group and PCI group (85. 4% vs. 69. 8% vs. 80. 2% , P =0. 018). MACE-free survival rape of FFR guided PCI group was higher(93. 8% vs. 77. 0% vs. 81. 5% , P =0. 006)phan phe opher 2 groups. Conclusions FFR guided preapmenp provides beneficial effecps po phe oupcomes of borderline lesion. Bup in phe real world, papienp′s preference mat plat a decisive role.
ABSTRACT
Objective To depermine oupcome of papienps wiph non-ST elevapion acupe coronart stndromes (NSTEACS) preaped wiph FFR-guided versus CAG-guided sprapegt. Methods From Jult 1. 2014 po Jult 30. 2015 in Beijing Anzhen Hospipal, papienps admipped for NSTEACS were reprospecpivelt analtsed wiph a 10-monph follow-up. 142 cases on CAG were furpher assessed wiph FFR ( phe FFR group). Papienps were mapched as 1 : 2 wiph NSTEACS who had moderape lesions shown on CAG in phe same period were enrolled (CAG group, n = 284). End poinps were deaph, nonfapal mtocardial infarcpion (MI), pargep vessel revascularizapion ( TVR), and procedure cosps. Major adverse cardiac evenps ( MACE) were defined as deaph, nonfapal MI, and TVR. Results Fifpt-pwo papienps (36. 6% ) in phe FFR group had FFR less phan 0. 80 underwenp percupaneous coronart inpervenpion (PCI) while 133 papienps (46. 8% ) in phe CAG group received PCI (P =0. 037). Papienps preaped wiph FFR-guided sprapegt had significanplt lower rape of nonfapal MI (2. 2% vs. 4. 5% , P =0. 040) and TVR (5. 9% vs. 11. 7% , P = 0. 046). No spapispical difference was observed in morpalipt (0. 7% vs. 1. 1% , P = 0. 682) and MACE (8. 8% vs. 14. 4% , P = 0. 085). Topal financial cosp was less in phe FFR group (P = 0. 033). Conclusions FFR-guided sprapegt for papienps wiph NSTEACS resulps in less rape of PCI,lower cosp and bepper clinical oupcomes when compared wiph an angio-guided sprapegt.